The Incidental Pundit: Who Talks Politics with Whom, and Why?

Informal discussion plays a crucial role in democracy, yet much of its value depends on diversity. We describe two models of political discussion. The purposive model holds that people typically select discussants who are knowledgeable and politically similar to them. The incidental model suggests t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American journal of political science 2020-01, Vol.64 (1), p.135-151
Hauptverfasser: Minozzi, William, Song, Hyunjin, Lazer, David M. J., Neblo, Michael A., Ognyanova, Katherine
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 151
container_issue 1
container_start_page 135
container_title American journal of political science
container_volume 64
creator Minozzi, William
Song, Hyunjin
Lazer, David M. J.
Neblo, Michael A.
Ognyanova, Katherine
description Informal discussion plays a crucial role in democracy, yet much of its value depends on diversity. We describe two models of political discussion. The purposive model holds that people typically select discussants who are knowledgeable and politically similar to them. The incidental model suggests that people talk politics for mostly idiosyncratic reasons, as by-products of nonpolitical social processes. To adjudicate between these accounts, we draw on a unique, multisite, panel data set of whole networks, with information about many social relationships, attitudes, and demographics. This evidence permits a stronger foundation for inferences than more common egocentric methods. We find that incidental processes shape discussion networks much more powerfully than purposive ones. Respondents tended to report discussants with whom they share other relationships and characteristics, rather than based on expertise or political similarity, suggesting that stimulating discussion outside of echo chambers may be easier than previously thought.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/ajps.12469
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2334698006</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>45281076</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>45281076</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3319-f4f56914ebcbd0b9ed3b7f90d62c1caa457c4d70fdcc293ab413defc4fe576ed3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kF1LwzAUhoMoOKc3_oKAeCN2Jk3SLoLIGH5MBg6ceBnSfLDUrt2SjrF_b2YVvPLcnA-e9xzOC8A5RgMc40aWqzDAKc34AehhRlHCOMoPQQ8hniZsyMgxOAmhRLGnnPTA3Xxh4KRWTpu6lRWcbWrt2lv4sWjgXFafAc6ayrVOBbh17WI_X15DWetY7e5PwZGVVTBnP7kP3h8f5uPnZPr6NBmPpokiBPPEUssyjqkpVKFRwY0mRW450lmqsJKSslxRnSOrlUo5kQXFRBurqDUszyLdBxfd3pVv1hsTWlE2G1_HkyIlJH47RCiL1FVHKd-E4I0VK--W0u8ERmJvj9jbI77tiTDu4K2rzO4fUoxeZm-_mstOU4a28X81KUG5oCwdYpRn5AuFdnKm</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2334698006</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Incidental Pundit: Who Talks Politics with Whom, and Why?</title><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Minozzi, William ; Song, Hyunjin ; Lazer, David M. J. ; Neblo, Michael A. ; Ognyanova, Katherine</creator><creatorcontrib>Minozzi, William ; Song, Hyunjin ; Lazer, David M. J. ; Neblo, Michael A. ; Ognyanova, Katherine</creatorcontrib><description>Informal discussion plays a crucial role in democracy, yet much of its value depends on diversity. We describe two models of political discussion. The purposive model holds that people typically select discussants who are knowledgeable and politically similar to them. The incidental model suggests that people talk politics for mostly idiosyncratic reasons, as by-products of nonpolitical social processes. To adjudicate between these accounts, we draw on a unique, multisite, panel data set of whole networks, with information about many social relationships, attitudes, and demographics. This evidence permits a stronger foundation for inferences than more common egocentric methods. We find that incidental processes shape discussion networks much more powerfully than purposive ones. Respondents tended to report discussants with whom they share other relationships and characteristics, rather than based on expertise or political similarity, suggesting that stimulating discussion outside of echo chambers may be easier than previously thought.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0092-5853</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1540-5907</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12469</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Attitudes ; Computer networks ; Democracy ; Experts ; Panel data ; Political attitudes ; Politics ; Respondents ; Social attitudes ; Social networks ; Social processes ; Social relations</subject><ispartof>American journal of political science, 2020-01, Vol.64 (1), p.135-151</ispartof><rights>2020 Midwest Political Science Association</rights><rights>2019, Midwest Political Science Association</rights><rights>2020 by the Midwest Political Science Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3319-f4f56914ebcbd0b9ed3b7f90d62c1caa457c4d70fdcc293ab413defc4fe576ed3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3319-f4f56914ebcbd0b9ed3b7f90d62c1caa457c4d70fdcc293ab413defc4fe576ed3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/45281076$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/45281076$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,1417,27924,27925,33774,45574,45575,58017,58250</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Minozzi, William</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Song, Hyunjin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lazer, David M. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neblo, Michael A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ognyanova, Katherine</creatorcontrib><title>The Incidental Pundit: Who Talks Politics with Whom, and Why?</title><title>American journal of political science</title><description>Informal discussion plays a crucial role in democracy, yet much of its value depends on diversity. We describe two models of political discussion. The purposive model holds that people typically select discussants who are knowledgeable and politically similar to them. The incidental model suggests that people talk politics for mostly idiosyncratic reasons, as by-products of nonpolitical social processes. To adjudicate between these accounts, we draw on a unique, multisite, panel data set of whole networks, with information about many social relationships, attitudes, and demographics. This evidence permits a stronger foundation for inferences than more common egocentric methods. We find that incidental processes shape discussion networks much more powerfully than purposive ones. Respondents tended to report discussants with whom they share other relationships and characteristics, rather than based on expertise or political similarity, suggesting that stimulating discussion outside of echo chambers may be easier than previously thought.</description><subject>Attitudes</subject><subject>Computer networks</subject><subject>Democracy</subject><subject>Experts</subject><subject>Panel data</subject><subject>Political attitudes</subject><subject>Politics</subject><subject>Respondents</subject><subject>Social attitudes</subject><subject>Social networks</subject><subject>Social processes</subject><subject>Social relations</subject><issn>0092-5853</issn><issn>1540-5907</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kF1LwzAUhoMoOKc3_oKAeCN2Jk3SLoLIGH5MBg6ceBnSfLDUrt2SjrF_b2YVvPLcnA-e9xzOC8A5RgMc40aWqzDAKc34AehhRlHCOMoPQQ8hniZsyMgxOAmhRLGnnPTA3Xxh4KRWTpu6lRWcbWrt2lv4sWjgXFafAc6ayrVOBbh17WI_X15DWetY7e5PwZGVVTBnP7kP3h8f5uPnZPr6NBmPpokiBPPEUssyjqkpVKFRwY0mRW450lmqsJKSslxRnSOrlUo5kQXFRBurqDUszyLdBxfd3pVv1hsTWlE2G1_HkyIlJH47RCiL1FVHKd-E4I0VK--W0u8ERmJvj9jbI77tiTDu4K2rzO4fUoxeZm-_mstOU4a28X81KUG5oCwdYpRn5AuFdnKm</recordid><startdate>20200101</startdate><enddate>20200101</enddate><creator>Minozzi, William</creator><creator>Song, Hyunjin</creator><creator>Lazer, David M. J.</creator><creator>Neblo, Michael A.</creator><creator>Ognyanova, Katherine</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200101</creationdate><title>The Incidental Pundit: Who Talks Politics with Whom, and Why?</title><author>Minozzi, William ; Song, Hyunjin ; Lazer, David M. J. ; Neblo, Michael A. ; Ognyanova, Katherine</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3319-f4f56914ebcbd0b9ed3b7f90d62c1caa457c4d70fdcc293ab413defc4fe576ed3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Attitudes</topic><topic>Computer networks</topic><topic>Democracy</topic><topic>Experts</topic><topic>Panel data</topic><topic>Political attitudes</topic><topic>Politics</topic><topic>Respondents</topic><topic>Social attitudes</topic><topic>Social networks</topic><topic>Social processes</topic><topic>Social relations</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Minozzi, William</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Song, Hyunjin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lazer, David M. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neblo, Michael A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ognyanova, Katherine</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>American journal of political science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Minozzi, William</au><au>Song, Hyunjin</au><au>Lazer, David M. J.</au><au>Neblo, Michael A.</au><au>Ognyanova, Katherine</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Incidental Pundit: Who Talks Politics with Whom, and Why?</atitle><jtitle>American journal of political science</jtitle><date>2020-01-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>64</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>135</spage><epage>151</epage><pages>135-151</pages><issn>0092-5853</issn><eissn>1540-5907</eissn><abstract>Informal discussion plays a crucial role in democracy, yet much of its value depends on diversity. We describe two models of political discussion. The purposive model holds that people typically select discussants who are knowledgeable and politically similar to them. The incidental model suggests that people talk politics for mostly idiosyncratic reasons, as by-products of nonpolitical social processes. To adjudicate between these accounts, we draw on a unique, multisite, panel data set of whole networks, with information about many social relationships, attitudes, and demographics. This evidence permits a stronger foundation for inferences than more common egocentric methods. We find that incidental processes shape discussion networks much more powerfully than purposive ones. Respondents tended to report discussants with whom they share other relationships and characteristics, rather than based on expertise or political similarity, suggesting that stimulating discussion outside of echo chambers may be easier than previously thought.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/ajps.12469</doi><tpages>17</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0092-5853
ispartof American journal of political science, 2020-01, Vol.64 (1), p.135-151
issn 0092-5853
1540-5907
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2334698006
source Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; Sociological Abstracts; Access via Wiley Online Library; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing
subjects Attitudes
Computer networks
Democracy
Experts
Panel data
Political attitudes
Politics
Respondents
Social attitudes
Social networks
Social processes
Social relations
title The Incidental Pundit: Who Talks Politics with Whom, and Why?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T23%3A35%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Incidental%20Pundit:%20Who%20Talks%20Politics%20with%20Whom,%20and%20Why?&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20political%20science&rft.au=Minozzi,%20William&rft.date=2020-01-01&rft.volume=64&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=135&rft.epage=151&rft.pages=135-151&rft.issn=0092-5853&rft.eissn=1540-5907&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/ajps.12469&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E45281076%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2334698006&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=45281076&rfr_iscdi=true